The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has set aside a charge under Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that a general allegation of “cooperation” with persons allegedly involved in narcotic activities is not enough to establish a prima facie case of abetment or criminal conspiracy.
Justice Farjand Ali delivered the reportable order on September 28, 2026, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 284/2024.
The case arose from a narcotics investigation following searches in Chittorgarh district in February 2023, during which the investigating agency alleged recovery of opium, poppy husk and tablets from other accused persons. The petitioner was subsequently summoned and his statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. A charge under Section 8/29 was later framed against him by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh.
The High Court noted that the petitioner was not present at the place where the alleged contraband was recovered and no contraband was recovered from his possession. The investigating officer also acknowledged that there was no independent material connecting him with the alleged narcotic activity apart from statements of co-accused persons.
The Court emphasised that Section 29 requires material indicating abetment or participation in a criminal conspiracy. Mere association or a broad allegation of assistance cannot substitute for specific factual material.
The Court observed:
“This aspect assumes considerable significance because the charge is not under a provision where mere association with the principal offender constitutes the offence. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted with the aid of Section 29. Consequently, the prosecution material must, at the minimum, disclose a factual substratum from which abetment or participation in a criminal conspiracy can legitimately be inferred. A bare assertion that the petitioner ‘cooperated’ with the principal accused, without disclosing the nature, manner or occasion of such cooperation, cannot by itself supply the missing ingredients of Section 29.”
The Court also considered the reliance placed on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, it noted that such a statement cannot be treated as a confessional statement for an NDPS trial.
Regarding the recovery of ₹68,500, the High Court found that the prosecution had not shown an independent connection between the money and the alleged narcotic offence.
The High Court held that the material on record did not provide sufficient grounds to presume abetment or criminal conspiracy under Section 29. It accordingly allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the order framing the charge under Section 8/29, and discharged the petitioner from that offence.
Case Title: Bheru Lal v. Union of India
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 284/2024
